Grain Ecosystem

On December 10, we hosted a live webinar bringing together Jason Dodier, Co-Founder of Grain Ecosystem, and Maureen Walsh, Executive Director of the U.S. Biochar Coalition, for an in-depth conversation on the policy forces shaping biochar’s path in 2026.  

The session explored how recent federal disruptions, shifting administrative priorities, and emerging state-level leadership are influencing funding, incentives, and market development for biochar projects across the United States. You can watch the full webinar recording here: 

Navigating federal policy after the shutdown: what actually changed 

As the federal government reopens after a prolonged shutdown, the instinct is often to ask whether things are “back to normal.” According to Maureen, that framing misses the point. What matters far more than the reopening itself is how different agencies are funded and what political priorities shape their actions. 

Not all programs shut down equally, and not all recover at the same pace. Agencies relying on annual appropriations —where funding must be renewed every fiscal year— tend to grind to a halt during shutdowns, with staff furloughed and processes paused. When operations resume, those teams return to overflowing inboxes, unpaid bills, and months of backlog before they can even begin addressing new opportunities. 

Other programs, particularly those funded through multi-year authorizations like the Farm Bill, continue to exist through shutdowns, but often in a diminished form. Funds may technically remain available, yet staffing is minimal and execution slows dramatically. In practice, this means approvals, reimbursements, and technical assistance often lag well beyond their original timelines. 

A third category —programs with “no-year” funding, such as certain Department of Energy research initiatives— can continue operating until allocated funds are exhausted. These programs proved more resilient during the shutdown, though even they were affected by limited personnel and shifting internal priorities. 

The result is a fragmented landscape where progress depends less on whether the government is “open” and more on where a specific project sits within these funding structures. For biochar developers, this distinction is critical. Understanding whether a program is discretionary, mandatory, or no-year funded can determine whether a project is delayed by weeks, months, or indefinitely. 

Framing biochar for the current administration 

Beyond mechanics, Maureen emphasized that language itself has become a policy tool. Certain terms that once opened doors in Washington now close them. Climate, sustainability, and clean energy —while still valid— do not resonate uniformly with this administration. Others, however, remain powerful. 

Biochar, she argued, is uniquely adaptable to this reality. When framed as a tool for waste management, resilience, rural jobs, and public health, it aligns more naturally with current federal priorities. The challenge is not changing what biochar does, but changing how it is described. 

One example that resonated strongly is PFAS contamination. These “forever chemicals” are increasingly recognized as a serious problem in biosolids, digestate, and contaminated lands. Biochar’s ability to adsorb and immobilize contaminants positions it as a remediation solution, not a climate talking point. Similarly, discussions around forest health, wildfire risk reduction, and hazardous fuels management have gained traction where climate language has stalled. 

In short, policy success today depends on meeting decision-makers where they are, rather than where the climate conversation was five years ago. 

Incentives in focus: 45Q, conservation programs, and energy on the farm 

As the conversation turned to specific incentives, Maureen made clear that few programs are as widely misunderstood —or as frequently overestimated— as the 45Q tax credit. 

While 45Q remains active and politically durable, biochar is not explicitly named in the statute. Some projects may have secured eligibility through private letter rulings with the Treasury Department, but these rulings apply only to individual projects and do not establish precedent for the industry. As a result, developers should be cautious about assuming 45Q eligibility without rigorous legal and tax analysis. 

USBC’s long-term strategy is to advocate for a more technology-neutral framework, one that focuses on outcomes rather than enumerating specific technologies. This approach mirrors reforms made to other federal credits and could eventually allow biochar to qualify based on verified performance, life-cycle analysis, and durable carbon outcomes. While progress is being made, Maureen emphasized that this is a multi-year effort rather than an immediate solution. 

On the agricultural side, conservation programs remain one of the most tangible near-term opportunities for biochar. NRCS Code 336 already recognizes biochar as a soil carbon amendment, but USBC is actively working to expand biochar’s role into nutrient management under Code 590. This shift reflects growing recognition that biochar can improve nutrient retention, reduce runoff, and support more efficient fertilizer use. 

If successful, this change would allow producers to stack conservation practices, making biochar more financially viable and more deeply integrated into farm-level planning. Importantly, USBC is engaging USDA early in this process, providing technical data before formal rulemaking begins, rather than reacting after standards are finalized. 

Programs like REAP, which support rural energy systems, also remain relevant, particularly as farmers face rising energy costs and competition for power from data centers and other industrial loads. Yet here again, framing matters. While farmers continue to defend the program, its association with “renewable energy” requires careful positioning under current political conditions. 

From farms to factories: biochar beyond soil 

A recurring theme throughout the webinar was the need to move beyond a view of biochar as solely a soil amendment. While agriculture remains foundational, Maureen highlighted a growing set of industrial and environmental applications that are shaping policy interest. 

Biochar’s remediation potential is drawing attention in brownfields and industrial sites, where its porous structure and surface charge can bind contaminants and enable removal. In heavy industry, biochar is being explored as a substitute for fossil-based inputs, including coke in steelmaking and additives in cement and concrete. These uses not only reduce emissions but also offer pathways for embedding durable carbon into long-lived materials. 

There is also increasing interest in biochar within advanced materials, from battery technologies to specialty carbons. In these contexts, biochar is less about climate messaging and more about industrial competitiveness, particularly as global markets —especially in Europe— maintain stringent emissions and materials standards. 

Across these applications, one point remained constant: biochar turns residual materials into value. Whether sourced from agricultural waste, forestry residues, or industrial byproducts, it offers an alternative to landfilling, decay, and uncontrolled emissions. 

When federal policy stalls, states step forward 

As federal momentum fluctuates, states are increasingly driving biochar policy and market development. Maureen described this shift not as a retreat, but as an opportunity. 

In California, strong legislative support for biochar has already materialized, though execution has proven complex. Two major bills passed with broad backing, only to be vetoed by Governor Newsom, who argued that existing regulatory authority was sufficient. Funding provisions and broader fiscal positioning likely influenced those decisions. Going forward, USBC is working to align future proposals more closely with the governor’s priorities, particularly around forest management and wildfire resilience. 

New York presents a different dynamic. There, biochar is primarily viewed through the lens of carbon dioxide removal. Legislative windows are short, but interest is high, and early engagement will be critical as new proposals take shape. 

Virginia, meanwhile, emerged as a particularly promising case. With new leadership, a more unified legislature, strong forestry resources, and proximity to federal agencies, the state offers fertile ground for policy experimentation. USBC sees Virginia as a place where regulatory flexibility, economic development, and environmental goals may align more readily than in larger or more polarized states. 

Across regions, Maureen emphasized that state legislatures are often more accessible, faster-moving, and more receptive to real-world project examples than Congress. For developers, this makes state engagement not just complementary to federal work, but in some cases more impactful. 

Fix Our Forests Act: a near-term inflection point 

Among the most consequential developments discussed was the Fix Our Forests Act. Already passed by the House and advancing in the Senate, the bill represents one of the clearest near-term opportunities for biochar at scale. 

Section 301 of the legislation explicitly references biochar, soil health, and restoration, envisioning demonstration projects across Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regions nationwide. Importantly, it emphasizes not just research, but market development, recognizing that durable impact requires viable demand, not perpetual pilots. 

While passage is not guaranteed, Maureen expressed cautious optimism. Even if final approval slips into the next session, the bill remains well-positioned. The more critical challenge, she noted, will be implementation: ensuring that agencies design programs that genuinely enable biochar projects rather than burying them in administrative complexity. 

As the conversation closed, Maureen underscored that policy progress is rarely linear. It requires persistence, coalition-building, and a willingness to engage even when the terrain feels hostile. 

Her advice to the biochar community was straightforward: stay engaged, stay informed, and stay ready. Programs will open, standards will evolve, and opportunities will emerge, often with little warning. Those who have already done the work to understand policy mechanics, document their projects, and build relationships will be best positioned to move quickly. 

At Grain Ecosystem, we see this moment not as a pause, but as a transition. The policy environment is shifting, but biochar’s value proposition —across waste, energy, agriculture, and industry— continues to strengthen. The challenge now is to translate that value into frameworks that allow projects to scale responsibly and sustainably. 

An in-depth look at the U.S. policy landscape shaping biochar in 2026, drawing on insights from Grain Ecosystem and the U.S. Biochar Coalition. 

origination

internal

carbon_partner_plus

member

free

<p></p><p>On December 10, we hosted a live webinar bringing together Jason Dodier, Co-Founder of Grain Ecosystem, and Maureen Walsh, Executive Director of the U.S. Biochar Coalition, for an in-depth conversation on the policy forces shaping biochar’s path in 2026.  </p><p>The session explored how recent federal disruptions, shifting administrative priorities, and emerging state-level leadership are influencing funding, incentives, and market development for biochar projects across the United States. You can watch the full webinar recording here: </p><p><iframe width="1265" height="468" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AlcMKy97xnQ" title="From Shutdown to Scale-Up | Webinar with Maureen Walsh (U.S. Biochar Coalition)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/AlcMKy97xnQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>(If the player isn’t visible, click to watch it directly on YouTube.)  </em></a></p><h2>Navigating federal policy after the shutdown: what actually changed </h2><p>As the federal government reopens after a prolonged shutdown, the instinct is often to ask whether things are “back to normal.” According to Maureen, that framing misses the point. What matters far more than the reopening itself is how different agencies are funded and what political priorities shape their actions. </p><p>Not all programs shut down equally, and not all recover at the same pace. Agencies relying on annual appropriations —where funding must be renewed every fiscal year— tend to grind to a halt during shutdowns, with staff furloughed and processes paused. When operations resume, those teams return to overflowing inboxes, unpaid bills, and months of backlog before they can even begin addressing new opportunities. </p><p>Other programs, particularly those funded through multi-year authorizations like the Farm Bill, continue to exist through shutdowns, but often in a diminished form. Funds may technically remain available, yet staffing is minimal and execution slows dramatically. In practice, this means approvals, reimbursements, and technical assistance often lag well beyond their original timelines. </p><p>A third category —programs with “no-year” funding, such as certain Department of Energy research initiatives— can continue operating until allocated funds are exhausted. These programs proved more resilient during the shutdown, though even they were affected by limited personnel and shifting internal priorities. </p><p>The result is a fragmented landscape where progress depends less on whether the government is “open” and more on where a specific project sits within these funding structures. For biochar developers, this distinction is critical. Understanding whether a program is discretionary, mandatory, or no-year funded can determine whether a project is delayed by weeks, months, or indefinitely. </p><h2>Framing biochar for the current administration </h2><p>Beyond mechanics, Maureen emphasized that language itself has become a policy tool. Certain terms that once opened doors in Washington now close them. Climate, sustainability, and clean energy —while still valid— do not resonate uniformly with this administration. Others, however, remain powerful. </p><p>Biochar, she argued, is uniquely adaptable to this reality. When framed as a tool for waste management, resilience, rural jobs, and public health, it aligns more naturally with current federal priorities. The challenge is not changing what biochar does, but changing how it is described. </p><p>One example that resonated strongly is PFAS contamination. These “forever chemicals” are increasingly recognized as a serious problem in biosolids, digestate, and contaminated lands. Biochar’s ability to adsorb and immobilize contaminants positions it as a remediation solution, not a climate talking point. Similarly, discussions around forest health, wildfire risk reduction, and hazardous fuels management have gained traction where climate language has stalled. </p><p>In short, policy success today depends on meeting decision-makers where they are, rather than where the climate conversation was five years ago. </p><h2>Incentives in focus: 45Q, conservation programs, and energy on the farm </h2><p>As the conversation turned to specific incentives, Maureen made clear that few programs are as widely misunderstood —or as frequently overestimated— as the 45Q tax credit. </p><p>While 45Q remains active and politically durable, biochar is not explicitly named in the statute. Some projects may have secured eligibility through private letter rulings with the Treasury Department, but these rulings apply only to individual projects and do not establish precedent for the industry. As a result, developers should be cautious about assuming 45Q eligibility without rigorous legal and tax analysis. </p><p>USBC’s long-term strategy is to advocate for a more technology-neutral framework, one that focuses on outcomes rather than enumerating specific technologies. This approach mirrors reforms made to other federal credits and could eventually allow biochar to qualify based on verified performance, life-cycle analysis, and durable carbon outcomes. While progress is being made, Maureen emphasized that this is a multi-year effort rather than an immediate solution. </p><p>On the agricultural side, conservation programs remain one of the most tangible near-term opportunities for biochar. NRCS Code 336 already recognizes biochar as a soil carbon amendment, but USBC is actively working to expand biochar’s role into nutrient management under Code 590. This shift reflects growing recognition that biochar can improve nutrient retention, reduce runoff, and support more efficient fertilizer use. </p><p>If successful, this change would allow producers to stack conservation practices, making biochar more financially viable and more deeply integrated into farm-level planning. Importantly, USBC is engaging USDA early in this process, providing technical data before formal rulemaking begins, rather than reacting after standards are finalized. </p><p>Programs like REAP, which support rural energy systems, also remain relevant, particularly as farmers face rising energy costs and competition for power from data centers and other industrial loads. Yet here again, framing matters. While farmers continue to defend the program, its association with “renewable energy” requires careful positioning under current political conditions. </p><h2>From farms to factories: biochar beyond soil </h2><p>A recurring theme throughout the webinar was the need to move beyond a view of biochar as solely a soil amendment. While agriculture remains foundational, Maureen highlighted a growing set of industrial and environmental applications that are shaping policy interest. </p><p>Biochar’s remediation potential is drawing attention in brownfields and industrial sites, where its porous structure and surface charge can bind contaminants and enable removal. In heavy industry, biochar is being explored as a substitute for fossil-based inputs, including coke in steelmaking and additives in cement and concrete. These uses not only reduce emissions but also offer pathways for embedding durable carbon into long-lived materials. </p><p>There is also increasing interest in biochar within advanced materials, from battery technologies to specialty carbons. In these contexts, biochar is less about climate messaging and more about industrial competitiveness, particularly as global markets —especially in Europe— maintain stringent emissions and materials standards. </p><p>Across these applications, one point remained constant: biochar turns residual materials into value. Whether sourced from agricultural waste, forestry residues, or industrial byproducts, it offers an alternative to landfilling, decay, and uncontrolled emissions. </p><h2>When federal policy stalls, states step forward </h2><p>As federal momentum fluctuates, states are increasingly driving biochar policy and market development. Maureen described this shift not as a retreat, but as an opportunity. </p><p>In California, strong legislative support for biochar has already materialized, though execution has proven complex. Two major bills passed with broad backing, only to be vetoed by Governor Newsom, who argued that existing regulatory authority was sufficient. Funding provisions and broader fiscal positioning likely influenced those decisions. Going forward, USBC is working to align future proposals more closely with the governor’s priorities, particularly around forest management and wildfire resilience. </p><p>New York presents a different dynamic. There, biochar is primarily viewed through the lens of carbon dioxide removal. Legislative windows are short, but interest is high, and early engagement will be critical as new proposals take shape. </p><p>Virginia, meanwhile, emerged as a particularly promising case. With new leadership, a more unified legislature, strong forestry resources, and proximity to federal agencies, the state offers fertile ground for policy experimentation. USBC sees Virginia as a place where regulatory flexibility, economic development, and environmental goals may align more readily than in larger or more polarized states. </p><p>Across regions, Maureen emphasized that state legislatures are often more accessible, faster-moving, and more receptive to real-world project examples than Congress. For developers, this makes state engagement not just complementary to federal work, but in some cases more impactful. </p><h2>Fix Our Forests Act: a near-term inflection point </h2><p>Among the most consequential developments discussed was the Fix Our Forests Act. Already passed by the House and advancing in the Senate, the bill represents one of the clearest near-term opportunities for biochar at scale. </p><p>Section 301 of the legislation explicitly references biochar, soil health, and restoration, envisioning demonstration projects across Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regions nationwide. Importantly, it emphasizes not just research, but market development, recognizing that durable impact requires viable demand, not perpetual pilots. </p><p>While passage is not guaranteed, Maureen expressed cautious optimism. Even if final approval slips into the next session, the bill remains well-positioned. The more critical challenge, she noted, will be implementation: ensuring that agencies design programs that genuinely enable biochar projects rather than burying them in administrative complexity. </p><h2>Looking ahead to 2026 </h2><p>As the conversation closed, Maureen underscored that policy progress is rarely linear. It requires persistence, coalition-building, and a willingness to engage even when the terrain feels hostile. </p><p>Her advice to the biochar community was straightforward: stay engaged, stay informed, and stay ready. Programs will open, standards will evolve, and opportunities will emerge, often with little warning. Those who have already done the work to understand policy mechanics, document their projects, and build relationships will be best positioned to move quickly. </p><p>At Grain Ecosystem, we see this moment not as a pause, but as a transition. The policy environment is shifting, but biochar’s value proposition —across waste, energy, agriculture, and industry— continues to strengthen. The challenge now is to translate that value into frameworks that allow projects to scale responsibly and sustainably. </p><h2>Watch all Grain Webinars </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/691204e28d0fcf646bb45360" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon Removal Meets Compliance: Navigating the Legal Landscape for Biochar Projects</a> with Peter Mayer.</li><li value=2><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68e6a74f3933aa4c973a0716" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard</a> with Mike Mitchell. </li><li value=3><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6883a7802492b585355e77ee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Green Bridge: Non-Traditional Finance for Biochar</a> with Adam Fraser. </li><li value=4><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b75ae223e6759660f119ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Advancing CDR: From Start-Up to Scale-Up</a> with Robert Höglund. </li><li value=5><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6751f73e593a512d338ee036" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Building Biochar Markets for Value & Scale: Webinar Recap</a> with Myles Grey and Bernardo Del Campo. </li><li value=6><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092f5e79685344119a953f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dirt to Dollars. Unearthing the Science of Sustainable Investment</a> with Ryan Letourneau, Alicia Klepfer and Jason Dodier. </li></ul>

From Shutdown to Scale-Up: What Federal and State Policy Means for Biochar in 2026 

At the 2025 North American Biochar Conference, Ryan Letourneau joined the stage to discuss how biochar projects are being financed today, and what’s changed since last year. 

The panel, “Financing the Future of Biochar: Real Capital for Real Infrastructure,” explored how project developers can make their projects bankable by combining climate impact, sound business fundamentals, and realistic capital strategies. 

Since 2024, the financing landscape has shifted: large pre-purchase carbon credit deals have largely given way to forward commitments, Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) have become key to unlocking capital, and developers are focusing more on proven technology, reliable feedstock, and long-term offtake agreements. 

Ryan emphasized that investors look for projects with clear economic logic: those that align environmental goals with strong financial foundations. 

That often means finding opportunities where biochar provides both climate benefits and operational savings, whether by reducing waste management costs, generating renewable energy, or creating high-value carbon removals. 

“Biochar is an amazing product," Letourneau noted, but investability starts with solving a real problem. Projects that combine clear feedstock security, proven technology, and transparent delivery are the ones that attract capital. 

Rethinking the Revenue Mix and the New Capital Stack

Biochar projects typically earn revenue from several sources: tipping fees, biochar physical sales, carbon credits, and sometimes energy. What matters most, Letourneau noted, isn’t just the amount but the

timing of those revenues. Early cash flow from tipping fees or energy sales can help sustain operations while waiting for carbon credit verification and delivery. That balance is often what determines whether a project can secure financing.

In today’s market, no single source of capital gets a project built. Successful developers are layering multiple tools (grants, low-interest loans, ITC-backed financing, and equity) into structured stacks that share risk across investors. This diversification, Letourneau explained, is replacing the old reliance on large carbon pre-purchases. “It’s unlikely we will see millions of dollars in pre-purchases in this space,” he said. What’s taking their place are forward commitments, grants, and credits that can actually be collateralized and underwritten.

"Outside of revenues, the next thing that investors are thinking about is risk," Ryan said. For investors, what matters most is reliability. Projects that demonstrate secure feedstock supply, proven technology, verified monitoring, and transparent contracts inspire confidence and move faster through financing. Investors aren’t just funding carbon, they’re funding reliability. Projects that show they can deliver what they promise are the ones that move first.

“We need as an industry more bankable projects. What’s good for everyone is more projects: more projects delivering biochar, more projects selling into new offtake markets, more carbon removed”, he said. Biochar continues to lead the carbon removal market, and the path forward depends on bringing real capital into real projects. As Ryan closed the session, his message to developers was simple: "design wisely, build smart, operate at scale."

A practical guide to financing biochar projects today: what’s changed since last year, which revenues actually matter, how to stack capital, and what “bankable” really looks like. 

<p></p><p>At the 2025 North American Biochar Conference, Ryan Letourneau joined the stage to discuss how biochar projects are being financed today, and what’s changed since last year. </p><p>The panel, “Financing the Future of Biochar: Real Capital for Real Infrastructure,” explored how project developers can make their projects bankable by combining climate impact, sound business fundamentals, and realistic capital strategies. </p><p><iframe width="908" height="508" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HSyKS-zxHQ?list=PLeBkf5YxlTT0J3OJszKL5Oz75_pkQQGKe" title="Financing the Future of Biochar: Real Capital for Real Infrastructure - Panel" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> </p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/8HSyKS-zxHQ?list=PLeBkf5YxlTT0J3OJszKL5Oz75_pkQQGKe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">If the video doesn’t display properly, click here to view it.</a> </p><p>Since 2024, the financing landscape has shifted: large pre-purchase carbon credit deals have largely given way to forward commitments, Investment Tax Credits (ITCs) have become key to unlocking capital, and developers are focusing more on proven technology, reliable feedstock, and long-term offtake agreements. </p><h2>Finding the Real Value Drivers </h2><p>Ryan emphasized that investors look for projects with clear economic logic: those that align environmental goals with strong financial foundations. </p><p>That often means finding opportunities where biochar provides both climate benefits and operational savings, whether by reducing waste management costs, generating renewable energy, or creating high-value carbon removals. </p><p>“Biochar is an amazing product," Letourneau noted, but investability starts with solving a real problem. Projects that combine clear feedstock security, proven technology, and transparent delivery are the ones that attract capital. </p><h2><strong>Rethinking the Revenue Mix and the New Capital Stack</strong></h2><p>Biochar projects typically earn revenue from several sources: tipping fees, biochar physical sales, carbon credits, and sometimes energy. What matters most, Letourneau noted, isn’t just the amount but the<strong> </strong>timing of those revenues. Early cash flow from tipping fees or energy sales can help sustain operations while waiting for carbon credit verification and delivery. That balance is often what determines whether a project can secure financing.</p><p>In today’s market, no single source of capital gets a project built. Successful developers are layering multiple tools (grants, low-interest loans, ITC-backed financing, and equity) into structured stacks that share risk across investors. This diversification, Letourneau explained, is replacing the old reliance on large carbon pre-purchases. “It’s unlikely we will see millions of dollars in pre-purchases in this space,” he said. What’s taking their place are forward commitments, grants, and credits that can actually be collateralized and underwritten.</p><h2><strong>Building Bankable Projects</strong></h2><p>"Outside of revenues, the next thing that investors are thinking about is risk," Ryan said. For investors, what matters most is reliability. Projects that demonstrate secure feedstock supply, proven technology, verified monitoring, and transparent contracts inspire confidence and move faster through financing. Investors aren’t just funding carbon, they’re funding reliability. Projects that show they can deliver what they promise are the ones that move first.</p><h2><strong>Closing Thoughts</strong></h2><p>“We need as an industry more bankable projects. What’s good for everyone is more projects: more projects delivering biochar, more projects selling into new offtake markets, more carbon removed”, he said. Biochar continues to lead the carbon removal market, and the path forward depends on bringing real capital into real projects. As Ryan closed the session, his message to developers was simple: "design wisely, build smart, operate at scale."</p><h2>Related content</h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6709366279685344119a968b" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon Removal Project Finance: What Works in Practice?</a></li><li value=2><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092e9a79685344119a94d3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Building Blocks of Carbon Removal Project Financing</a></li><li value=3><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68d6bedd8b443be7fb77319d" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Key Lessons on Biochar Sales</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li><li value=4><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68e6a74f3933aa4c973a0716" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard</a></li><li value=5><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6883a7802492b585355e77ee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Green Bridge: Non-Traditional Finance for Biochar</a></li><li value=6><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/687691e55e36c0dbe6ba0ab6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Understanding NRCS Code 336: Soil Carbon Amendment<em> </em></a><em>(Members only)</em></li><li value=7><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b75ae223e6759660f119ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Advancing CDR: From Start-Up to Scale-Up</a></li><li value=8><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b622d723e6759660f11705" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Grant Funding Opportunities for Biochar Projects in the USA</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li><li value=9><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092efd79685344119a9508" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Key Takeaways from NABC24</a></li></ul>

Financing the Future of Biochar: Real Capital for Real Infrastructure 

As biochar and carbon removal mature, legal structuring and compliance are moving from “guardrails” to the actual scaffolding of trust. That trust determines which projects win financing, endure scrutiny, and scale. Our goal in this session: let climate ambition meet the rule of law. And be transparent about what “credible and investable” really requires. 

Prefer to watch? The webinar recording is available on our YouTube channel.  

On November 6, 2025, Grain Ecosystem hosted a live webinar, Carbon Removal Meets Compliance, featuring Jason Dodier, Grain’s Co-Founder, and Peter Mayer, Partner at Stairs Dillenbeck Finley Mayer PLLC (SDFM.nyc). Jason framed the market context from the developer and investor side, while Peter —an attorney who advises climate tech start-ups, project developers, and carbon market participants— brought practical guidance on contracts, permitting, MRV, and policy. Together, they explored how to structure biochar and carbon removal projects so they’re not only technically sound, but also compliant, financeable, and built to last. 

Market maturity and the “bankability” mismatch 

When Peter Mayer first began working with carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects about three years ago, the market felt improvised. Legal documentation was often patched together, and financing conversations leaned heavily on optimism rather than structure. But in just a few years, that’s changed dramatically. The sector is maturing fast, and with that comes a new focus on what “bankability” really means. 

As Peter explained during the webinar, many developers and investors still use bankability as a catch-all term, when in fact it has very different meanings depending on the stage and type of project. Traditional infrastructure projects (like power plants or utilities) are built on predictable performance, steady revenues, and long-term contracts that make lenders comfortable. Biochar and other carbon removal facilities, however, are still early in their technological and commercial evolution. Their offtake agreements serve less as collateral and more as what Peter called a “seal of confidence”: a signal from buyers and partners that a project’s concept and team are credible. 

Jason Dodier added that confidence itself becomes a form of currency. Just as early energy-as-a-service projects relied on long-term offtakes to prove reliability, biochar developers today must show that their operations, feedstock sourcing, and carbon accounting will deliver consistent results. In this emerging market, trust is the first form of capital, and clear, well-structured contracts are the tools that build it. 

As the biochar market matures, getting the legal details right is becoming a key part of successful project development. Every facility operates within a web of relationships (landowners, suppliers, technology providers, credit buyers, investors, etc.) and each one brings its own set of risks. The right contracts don’t just formalize these relationships; they set the foundation for stability, trust, and financing. 

For projects built on leased land, Peter Mayer highlighted a recurring pitfall: unclear ownership of the credits generated by the facility. Without explicit language, landowners might later claim partial rights to carbon credits or revenues. A well-written lease should clearly state the developer’s right to install and operate the pyrolysis system, and their exclusive entitlement to the credits produced. “You don’t want to find out after commissioning that your landlord believes they own a share of your offsets,” Peter warned. 

Feedstock agreements also carry high stakes. Permits are typically issued based on the characteristics of the biomass being processed, like its origin, composition, and contamination levels. If suppliers deliver material outside those parameters, developers can inadvertently breach their permits. To prevent this, supply contracts should include strict quality specifications, documentation requirements, and predefined processes for testing and resolving disputes. In many cases, appointing an independent expert to make binding quality determinations can save time, cost, and conflict. 

Many biochar projects are co-located with existing operations (such as sawmills, timber processors, or agricultural producers) to take advantage of on-site residues. But shared sites bring shared complexity. Jason noted that overlapping ownership or feedstock supply can create confusion over who controls which parts of the operation or who benefits from the credits. Peter recommended joint venture agreements, or at least detailed memoranda of understanding, to define roles, responsibilities, and revenue splits. A clear mediation clause, he added, is invaluable when projects evolve faster than expectations. 

Both speakers underscored that contracts aren’t just about protecting against risk: they’re about creating the conditions for collaboration. When the details are clear from the beginning, developers, landowners, and investors can focus on scaling the project rather than untangling disputes. 

Carbon credit offtake: integrity, timelines, and standardization 

Carbon credit offtake agreements are the backbone of any carbon removal project, but they’re still far from standardized. Peter Mayer noted that this lack of uniformity often leads to confusion and risk, making clarity and transparency essential from the start. 

He advised developers to choose their standard early and build their entire workflow around it. Also, they should commit only to delivery schedules they can truly meet, include grace periods for verification delays, and clearly define when ownership and payment transfer between parties. Overpromising credit volumes or timelines, he warned, can quickly erode credibility.  

Jason added that integrity in MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) is what ultimately builds market confidence. Buyers care about MRV integrity and delivery certainty, and they’re wary of reputational risk. 

Bottom line: contracts are risk-mitigation tools. They don’t replace performance, but they can prevent misalignment from becoming a crisis. 

Permitting & zoning: start early, speak clearly 

Permitting can make or break a biochar project. It’s often where great ideas meet real-world complexity. In the US, regulations differ from state to state (and sometimes even between counties), which is why Peter urged developers to engage with local authorities early, before equipment ever arrives on-site.  

Structuring for finance: isolate risk, make diligence easy 

A project’s legal structure is more than paperwork: it’s the framework that determines how risk, ownership, and opportunity flow. As Peter explained, investors look for organization, and the way a company structures itself can make or break financing discussions.  

For small projects, a single project company may be enough. But as operations grow across multiple sites or states, setting up separate entities for each location helps contain risk and isolate liabilities. This structure also makes it easier for lenders to assess exposure and for investors to see where their capital fits. “Banks want to know what assets exist, where they sit, and what recourse they have if something goes wrong,” Peter said. 

Jason added that structure directly influences credibility with financiers. The more a developer demonstrates awareness of risk (from regulatory changes to feedstock variability), the more confidence investors gain. 

Your corporate structure should signal discipline and make it easy for capital to engage: 

On risk management, the conversation turned to insurance, an emerging marker of maturity in the carbon market. Beyond standard equipment and liability coverage, insurers are beginning to offer protection for carbon credit delivery failures, a sign that the sector is becoming more sophisticated. Peter noted that while these products are still developing, they could help stabilize transactions and build buyer confidence over time. 

Ultimately, structuring and insurance aren’t about eliminating uncertainty: they’re about making it visible and manageable, so that innovation can move forward with confidence. 

As biochar moves from innovation to implementation, policy is beginning to catch up. Peter Mayer described the current landscape as incredibly important but still fragmented, with federal, state, and local initiatives advancing at different speeds. While a full federal compliance market isn’t expected soon, emerging programs and tax incentives are already shaping how projects are designed and financed. 

One key example is the 45Q tax credit, which may soon include biochar as an eligible carbon removal pathway. Guidance from the IRS on measurement and verification (MRV) requirements for tax credit eligibility could have ripple effects across the voluntary carbon market, providing much-needed clarity on what constitutes credible and durable carbon removal. 

 and various state-level incentives) are beginning to layer additional support for biochar adoption. When combined, these mechanisms could make biochar one of the most accessible and financeable carbon removal options available to farmers and rural developers.  

Both speakers emphasized that policy and compliance frameworks will evolve through practice, not theory. Real-world projects will define what counts as measurable, verifiable, and bankable, and legal clarity will follow. In Jason’s words, the future of carbon removal law “will be written not just by policymakers, but by the practitioners building it today.” 

Jason closed the session by summarizing what developers can do today to build stronger, more investable projects. His advice was straightforward: start structured, stay transparent, and think long-term. 

Here’s what that looks like in practice: 

Choose your standard early. Your MRV framework will shape every compliance, credit, and financing decision down the line. 

 Document your agreements clearly. Define ownership of land, feedstock, and credits before the first permit is filed. 

 Engage regulators early. Build relationships with local authorities and clarify classifications to avoid costly rework. 

 Structure for growth. Separate entities and clean governance make financing easier and protect against cascading risk. 

Plan for delays. Include grace periods and dispute-resolution mechanisms in contracts to manage the unexpected. 

 Consider insurance. Delivery, liability, and equipment coverage are emerging tools to safeguard credibility. 

Markets run on confidence, and confidence should run on integrity. Standardized documentation, transparent MRV, and early regulatory engagement are the fastest route to financeable biochar projects that deliver real, durable climate impact. 

How to structure compliant, financeable biochar projects —contracts, permitting, MRV, policy signals, insurance, and risk management— drawn from a live conversation with attorney Peter Mayer. 

<p></p><p>As biochar and carbon removal mature, legal structuring and compliance are moving from “guardrails” to the actual scaffolding of trust. That trust determines which projects win financing, endure scrutiny, and scale. Our goal in this session: let climate ambition meet the rule of law. And be transparent about what “credible and investable” really requires. </p><p><strong>Prefer to watch? The webinar recording is available on our YouTube channel.  </strong></p><p><iframe width="1153" height="649" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N-9I9byhmWM" title="Carbon Removal Meets Compliance: Navigating the Legal Landscape for Biochar Projects | Peter Mayer" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> </p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/N-9I9byhmWM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">(If the player isn’t visible, click to watch it directly on YouTube.)</a> </p><p>On November 6, 2025, Grain Ecosystem hosted a live webinar, Carbon Removal Meets Compliance, featuring Jason Dodier, Grain’s Co-Founder, and Peter Mayer, Partner at Stairs Dillenbeck Finley Mayer PLLC (SDFM.nyc). Jason framed the market context from the developer and investor side, while Peter —an attorney who advises climate tech start-ups, project developers, and carbon market participants— brought practical guidance on contracts, permitting, MRV, and policy. Together, they explored how to structure biochar and carbon removal projects so they’re not only technically sound, but also compliant, financeable, and built to last. </p><h2>Market maturity and the “bankability” mismatch </h2><p>When Peter Mayer first began working with carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects about three years ago, the market felt improvised. Legal documentation was often patched together, and financing conversations leaned heavily on optimism rather than structure. But in just a few years, that’s changed dramatically. The sector is maturing fast, and with that comes a new focus on what “bankability” really means. </p><p>As Peter explained during the webinar, many developers and investors still use bankability as a catch-all term, when in fact it has very different meanings depending on the stage and type of project. Traditional infrastructure projects (like power plants or utilities) are built on predictable performance, steady revenues, and long-term contracts that make lenders comfortable. Biochar and other carbon removal facilities, however, are still early in their technological and commercial evolution. Their offtake agreements serve less as collateral and more as what Peter called a “seal of confidence”: a signal from buyers and partners that a project’s concept and team are credible. </p><p>Jason Dodier added that confidence itself becomes a form of currency. Just as early energy-as-a-service projects relied on long-term offtakes to prove reliability, biochar developers today must show that their operations, feedstock sourcing, and carbon accounting will deliver consistent results. In this emerging market, trust is the first form of capital, and clear, well-structured contracts are the tools that build it. </p><h2>Contracts that actually reduce risk </h2><p>As the biochar market matures, getting the legal details right is becoming a key part of successful project development. Every facility operates within a web of relationships (landowners, suppliers, technology providers, credit buyers, investors, etc.) and each one brings its own set of risks. The right contracts don’t just formalize these relationships; they set the foundation for stability, trust, and financing. </p><h3>1) Land use & leasing </h3><p>For projects built on leased land, Peter Mayer highlighted a recurring pitfall: unclear ownership of the credits generated by the facility. Without explicit language, landowners might later claim partial rights to carbon credits or revenues. A well-written lease should clearly state the developer’s right to install and operate the pyrolysis system, and their exclusive entitlement to the credits produced. “You don’t want to find out after commissioning that your landlord believes they own a share of your offsets,” Peter warned. </p><h3>2) Feedstock supply </h3><p>Feedstock agreements also carry high stakes. Permits are typically issued based on the characteristics of the biomass being processed, like its origin, composition, and contamination levels. If suppliers deliver material outside those parameters, developers can inadvertently breach their permits. To prevent this, supply contracts should include strict quality specifications, documentation requirements, and predefined processes for testing and resolving disputes. In many cases, appointing an independent expert to make binding quality determinations can save time, cost, and conflict. </p><p><em>Read </em><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6814f3dae44bb4f2fc862292" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>How to Understand Your Biochar Quality</em></a><em> (Members only)</em></p><h3>3) Co-location and shared value </h3><p>Many biochar projects are co-located with existing operations (such as sawmills, timber processors, or agricultural producers) to take advantage of on-site residues. But shared sites bring shared complexity. Jason noted that overlapping ownership or feedstock supply can create confusion over who controls which parts of the operation or who benefits from the credits. Peter recommended joint venture agreements, or at least detailed memoranda of understanding, to define roles, responsibilities, and revenue splits. A clear mediation clause, he added, is invaluable when projects evolve faster than expectations. </p><p>Both speakers underscored that contracts aren’t just about protecting against risk: they’re about creating the conditions for collaboration. When the details are clear from the beginning, developers, landowners, and investors can focus on scaling the project rather than untangling disputes. </p><h2>Carbon credit offtake: integrity, timelines, and standardization </h2><p>Carbon credit offtake agreements are the backbone of any carbon removal project, but they’re still far from standardized. Peter Mayer noted that this lack of uniformity often leads to confusion and risk, making clarity and transparency essential from the start. </p><p>He advised developers to choose their standard early and build their entire workflow around it. Also, they should commit only to delivery schedules they can truly meet, include grace periods for verification delays, and clearly define when ownership and payment transfer between parties. Overpromising credit volumes or timelines, he warned, can quickly erode credibility.  </p><p>Jason added that integrity in MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) is what ultimately builds market confidence. Buyers care about MRV integrity and delivery certainty, and they’re wary of reputational risk. </p><p>Bottom line: contracts are risk-mitigation tools. They don’t replace performance, but they can prevent misalignment from becoming a crisis. </p><h2>Permitting & zoning: start early, speak clearly </h2><p>Permitting can make or break a biochar project. It’s often where great ideas meet real-world complexity. In the US, regulations differ from state to state (and sometimes even between counties), which is why Peter urged developers to engage with local authorities early, before equipment ever arrives on-site.  </p><p>The most reliable playbook: </p><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Engage regulators early. Explain your feedstocks, operating conditions, emissions controls, utilities, and outputs. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Mind classification. Whether your inputs are treated as biomass or waste can change your permits and timelines; avoid being misclassified as incineration where outdated definitions exist. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Name the facility clearly. Framing as advanced recycling or carbon-negative manufacturing can help zoning boards understand intent. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Document everything. Permit narratives should align with feedstock specs in your supply contracts. </li></ul><p><em>Read </em><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/682b51ea3c1b819385ca0d9e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Zoning and Permitting a Biochar Project</em></a><em> (Members only)</em></p><h2>Structuring for finance: isolate risk, make diligence easy </h2><p>A project’s legal structure is more than paperwork: it’s the framework that determines how risk, ownership, and opportunity flow. As Peter explained, investors look for organization, and the way a company structures itself can make or break financing discussions.  </p><p>For small projects, a single project company may be enough. But as operations grow across multiple sites or states, setting up separate entities for each location helps contain risk and isolate liabilities. This structure also makes it easier for lenders to assess exposure and for investors to see where their capital fits. “Banks want to know what assets exist, where they sit, and what recourse they have if something goes wrong,” Peter said. </p><p>Jason added that structure directly influences credibility with financiers. The more a developer demonstrates awareness of risk (from regulatory changes to feedstock variability), the more confidence investors gain. </p><p>Your corporate structure should signal discipline and make it easy for capital to engage: </p><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><strong>Small, single-site projects:</strong> one project company (SPV) can be fine. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><strong>Multi-site pipelines: </strong>Consider a holding company with site-level SPVs to isolate regulatory and operational risk by jurisdiction. You can also create one project company per location, especially when projects operate in different states with varying regulations. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><strong>Intellectual property and operations: </strong>Separate IP and operational entities when appropriate to protect core assets. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><strong>Raising venture capital: </strong>Form a Delaware C-Corp rather than an LLC, as most VC investors will not invest in LLC structures. </li></ul><p>On risk management, the conversation turned to insurance, an emerging marker of maturity in the carbon market. Beyond standard equipment and liability coverage, insurers are beginning to offer protection for carbon credit delivery failures, a sign that the sector is becoming more sophisticated. Peter noted that while these products are still developing, they could help stabilize transactions and build buyer confidence over time. </p><p>Ultimately, structuring and insurance aren’t about eliminating uncertainty: they’re about making it visible and manageable, so that innovation can move forward with confidence. </p><h2>Policy and the future of compliance </h2><p>As biochar moves from innovation to implementation, policy is beginning to catch up. Peter Mayer described the current landscape as incredibly important but still fragmented, with federal, state, and local initiatives advancing at different speeds. While a full federal compliance market isn’t expected soon, emerging programs and tax incentives are already shaping how projects are designed and financed. </p><p>One key example is the 45Q tax credit, which may soon include biochar as an eligible carbon removal pathway. Guidance from the IRS on measurement and verification (MRV) requirements for tax credit eligibility could have ripple effects across the voluntary carbon market, providing much-needed clarity on what constitutes credible and durable carbon removal. </p><p>Jason added that other programs (like <a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/687691e55e36c0dbe6ba0ab6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">USDA’s Section 336</a> and various state-level incentives) are beginning to layer additional support for biochar adoption. When combined, these mechanisms could make biochar one of the most accessible and financeable carbon removal options available to farmers and rural developers.  </p><p>Both speakers emphasized that policy and compliance frameworks will evolve through practice, not theory. Real-world projects will define what counts as measurable, verifiable, and bankable, and legal clarity will follow. In Jason’s words, the future of carbon removal law “will be written not just by policymakers, but by the practitioners building it today.” </p><h2>Developer checklist </h2><p>Jason closed the session by summarizing what developers can do today to build stronger, more investable projects. His advice was straightforward: start structured, stay transparent, and think long-term. </p><p>Here’s what that looks like in practice: </p><p><strong>1. </strong>Choose your standard early. Your MRV framework will shape every compliance, credit, and financing decision down the line. </p><p><strong>2.</strong> Document your agreements clearly. Define ownership of land, feedstock, and credits before the first permit is filed. </p><p><strong>3.</strong> Engage regulators early. Build relationships with local authorities and clarify classifications to avoid costly rework. </p><p><strong>4.</strong> Structure for growth. Separate entities and clean governance make financing easier and protect against cascading risk. </p><p><strong>5. </strong>Plan for delays. Include grace periods and dispute-resolution mechanisms in contracts to manage the unexpected. </p><p><strong>6.</strong> Consider insurance. Delivery, liability, and equipment coverage are emerging tools to safeguard credibility. </p><h2>Conclusion </h2><p>Markets run on confidence, and confidence should run on integrity. Standardized documentation, transparent MRV, and early regulatory engagement are the fastest route to financeable biochar projects that deliver real, durable climate impact. </p><h2>Related Content </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68af5254b1d72ab2d7467ef7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Securing Your Feedstock: How to Prove it’s Sustainable</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/688a6eb62492b585355e9fd3" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Importance of Laboratory Testing in Biochar Projects</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/682b51ea3c1b819385ca0d9e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Zoning and Permitting a Biochar Project</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6814f3dae44bb4f2fc862292" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How to Understand Your Biochar Quality</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/687691e55e36c0dbe6ba0ab6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Understanding NRCS Code 336: Soil Carbon Amendment</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><h2>Watch all Grain Webinars </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68e6a74f3933aa4c973a0716" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard</a> with Mike Mitchell. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6883a7802492b585355e77ee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Green Bridge: Non-Traditional Finance for Biochar</a> with Adam Fraser. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b75ae223e6759660f119ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Advancing CDR: From Start-Up to Scale-Up</a> with Robert Höglund. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6751f73e593a512d338ee036" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Building Biochar Markets for Value & Scale: Webinar Recap</a> with Myles Grey and Bernardo Del Campo. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092f5e79685344119a953f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dirt to Dollars. Unearthing the Science of Sustainable Investment</a> with Ryan Letourneau, Alicia Klepfer and Jason Dodier. </li></ul>

Carbon Removal Meets Compliance: Navigating the Legal Landscape for Biochar Projects 

ElectraTherm

/ -- Grain Ecosystem, a climate-tech company building digital and financial infrastructure for biochar and renewable energy projects, and ElectraTherm Inc. announce the integration of ElectraTherm's Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) technology into Grain's flagship equipment selection software. This enhancement enables project developers to evaluate and incorporate the value of waste heat-to-power solutions directly within their system design planning.

The integration represents a major step forward for the biochar and pyrolysis industry, allowing accurate modeling of the financial and environmental benefits of electricity generation from waste heat recovery—including potential investment tax credit advantages. ElectraTherm's ORC systems convert low-temperature waste heat into usable power, making them ideally suited for coupling with pyrolysis operations to transform previously lost energy into a valuable resource.

"With the addition of ElectraTherm's ORC technology, developers using the Grain Ecosystem platform can now model electrical generation outputs, assess revenue potential, and quantify low-carbon energy contributions from waste heat recovery," said Ryan Letourneau, CEO and Co-Founder of Grain Ecosystem. "This feature brings vital transparency to project financials and helps accelerate investment in clean technology infrastructure."

The new software functionality aligns with U.S. tax incentives for Waste Energy Recovery Property (WERP), carbon credit generation, and energy offtake monetization. It empowers developers to explore more project configurations and make data-driven decisions that maximize both climate impact and economic return.

"ElectraTherm is proud to partner with Grain Ecosystem to enable smarter, more sustainable biochar projects," said Natalie Van Dyke, Director of Sales at ElectraTherm. "This integration makes it easier for developers to capture pyrolysis waste heat and convert it into reliable, renewable energy."

The Grain–ElectraTherm collaboration is already progressing from concept to implementation, with multiple live projects underway and set to go online soon. The enhanced platform is now available to all Grain Ecosystems subscribers. To learn more, visit 

Grain Ecosystem provides software and data tools that help developers, investors, and policymakers accelerate deployment of carbon-negative and regenerative infrastructure through streamlined equipment selection and performance modeling.

ElectraTherm designs and manufactures low-temperature ORC generators that convert waste heat into electricity, helping industrial, geothermal, and biomass facilities reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency.

The integration represents a major step forward for the biochar and pyrolysis industry, allowing accurate modeling of the financial and environmental benefits of electricity generation from waste heat recovery—including potential investment tax credit advantages. 

<p></p><p>FLOWERY BRANCH, Ga., Nov. 4, 2025 /<a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/electratherms-orc-technology-integrated-into-grain-ecosystems-equipment-selection-platform-302602621.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">PRNewswire</a>/ -- Grain Ecosystem, a climate-tech company building digital and financial infrastructure for biochar and renewable energy projects, and ElectraTherm Inc. announce the integration of ElectraTherm's Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) technology into Grain's flagship equipment selection software. This enhancement enables project developers to evaluate and incorporate the value of waste heat-to-power solutions directly within their system design planning.<br><br>The integration represents a major step forward for the biochar and pyrolysis industry, allowing accurate modeling of the financial and environmental benefits of electricity generation from waste heat recovery—including potential investment tax credit advantages. ElectraTherm's ORC systems convert low-temperature waste heat into usable power, making them ideally suited for coupling with pyrolysis operations to transform previously lost energy into a valuable resource.<br><br>"With the addition of ElectraTherm's ORC technology, developers using the Grain Ecosystem platform can now model electrical generation outputs, assess revenue potential, and quantify low-carbon energy contributions from waste heat recovery," said Ryan Letourneau, CEO and Co-Founder of Grain Ecosystem. "This feature brings vital transparency to project financials and helps accelerate investment in clean technology infrastructure."<br><br>The new software functionality aligns with U.S. tax incentives for Waste Energy Recovery Property (WERP), carbon credit generation, and energy offtake monetization. It empowers developers to explore more project configurations and make data-driven decisions that maximize both climate impact and economic return.<br><br>"ElectraTherm is proud to partner with Grain Ecosystem to enable smarter, more sustainable biochar projects," said Natalie Van Dyke, Director of Sales at ElectraTherm. "This integration makes it easier for developers to capture pyrolysis waste heat and convert it into reliable, renewable energy."<br><br>The Grain–ElectraTherm collaboration is already progressing from concept to implementation, with multiple live projects underway and set to go online soon. The enhanced platform is now available to all Grain Ecosystems subscribers. To learn more, visit <a href="https://edge.prnewswire.com/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=4545873-1&h=2438653805&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgrainecosystem.com%2F&a=www.grainecosystems.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.grainecosystem.com</a> and select JOIN THE ECOSYSTEM.</p><p>Media Contact:</p><p>Will Rigdon<br>Marketing Manager, ElectraTherm<br>770-718-2920 | <a href="mailto:wrigdon@bitzerus.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrigdon@bitzerus.com</a></p><p><strong>About Grain Ecosystem</strong><br>Grain Ecosystem provides software and data tools that help developers, investors, and policymakers accelerate deployment of carbon-negative and regenerative infrastructure through streamlined equipment selection and performance modeling.</p><p><strong>About ElectraTherm Inc.</strong><br>ElectraTherm designs and manufactures low-temperature ORC generators that convert waste heat into electricity, helping industrial, geothermal, and biomass facilities reduce emissions and improve energy efficiency.</p><p>SOURCE: ElectraTherm</p>

ElectraTherm's ORC Technology Integrated into Grain Ecosystem's Equipment Selection Platform

The recording of our recent webinar, Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard, is now available. 

Last week’s Biochar in Bloom webinar spotlighted Mike Mitchell, owner of Okaw Valley Orchard and founder of Mike’s Mighty Micros, who shared his firsthand experience with integrating biochar into orchard management. Hosted by Grain Ecosystem co-founder Jason Dodier, the conversation explored how traditional practices and regenerative tools can work together to restore soil health, improve resilience, and strengthen local food systems.  

Okaw Valley Orchard is a fourth-generation family-run orchard in Sullivan, Illinois, home to more than 1,500 fruit trees and 27 varieties of apples, peaches, plums, and pears. Known for its cider, donuts, and “you-pick” experiences, the orchard is also becoming a living laboratory for soil health innovation. 

When Mike and his wife took over the orchard, they inherited both a rich family legacy and some aging trees that weren’t producing as they used to. After replanting, Mike noticed the new trees weren’t growing as expected. Despite consulting universities and other orchards, he couldn’t find a clear answer, until a chance encounter with a customer, a retired farmer, connected him to Brian, a regenerative agronomist who would become his mentor and collaborator.  

The turning point: a micronutrient blend that brought trees back to life 

Brian introduced Mike to the importance of trace minerals and micronutrients, sharing a custom foliar blend he had developed through years of research. The results were immediate: “They burst to life,” Mike recalled. All the trees “put on new growth, turned green, and started blooming. And it wasn’t just a couple of them; it was all the trees that I planted. All 200 trees did the same thing.” 

That experience became the foundation of Mike’s Mighty Micros, a brand and philosophy rooted in the idea that when you feed the soil, the soil feeds the plant. 

The three ingredients for thriving soil 

 When asked what he now considers essential for healthy soil, Mike didn’t hesitate: “Biochar, worm castings, and compost.” 

After learning how decades of tree growth had depleted the orchard’s soil, Mike realized that fertilizer alone couldn’t restore what was missing. By combining biochar with organic matter and microbial life, he began rebuilding soil structure and fertility from the ground up. 

As Mike explained during the webinar: “Biochar keeps the ground less compacted, more aerated, more ideal for worms to be in. So they’re in there doing their thing, digging tunnels, pooping in them, and fertilizing for you for free.”  

Biochar, he explained, acts as a soil amendment, not a replacement. It provides structure, porosity, and habitat for microorganisms. Compost and worm castings supply nutrients and active biology. Together, they create a living soil system that improves water retention, nutrient cycling, and long-term fertility. 

The benefits have been visible and measurable. Even during drought conditions, Mike’s orchard has shown clear improvements in resilience and water retention. “Right now, we’re in a drought here in central Illinois. We’re twelve inches behind on rain,” he said. “The ground is like concrete. But under my trees, where I’ve got biochar and mulch, it’s holding moisture. I haven’t watered this year, and the new trees I planted this spring are still green.” 

He noted that his trees now stay green longer into the season: “My apple trees will stay green until the end of November. The other trees drop their leaves, but the apple trees under this system hold on. They stay alive longer.” 

Beyond resilience, Mike highlighted something less often measured but instantly recognizable: flavor. “Once you’ve had a fruit or vegetable that’s fully genetically expressed — with every mineral it needs — the flavor is second to none. When you bite into one of my apples, the flavor hits you. It’s juicy. It’s all there.”  

Biochar In Bloom Photos

Lessons for farmers and biochar producers 

Beyond the orchard, Mike’s experience offers valuable guidance for both farmers using biochar and producers supplying it:  

A family legacy, rooted in regeneration 

Today, Okaw Valley Orchard continues to be a thriving family business, with Mike’s children and grandchildren all involved. What started as an effort to save a few struggling trees has grown into a model for how small farms can embrace circular, regenerative systems, proving that soil innovation can strengthen both local economies and community connections. 

 “Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy people. That’s the cycle we’re working to protect,” Mike shared. 

Mark your calendars! Our next webinar is coming up on November 6 with a new topic and guest. Stay tuned. 

How a fourth-generation orchardist is using biochar, compost, and worm castings to rebuild his soil, and grow stronger, more resilient trees. 

<p></p><p>The recording of our recent webinar, Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard, is now available. </p><p><iframe width="1905" height="748" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0Ioxo8W65ww" title="Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard | Webinar with Mike Mitchell" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/0Ioxo8W65ww" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>If you can’t see the video above, click here to watch the full recording directly on YouTube. </em></a></p><p>Last week’s Biochar in Bloom webinar spotlighted Mike Mitchell, owner of Okaw Valley Orchard and founder of Mike’s Mighty Micros, who shared his firsthand experience with integrating biochar into orchard management. Hosted by Grain Ecosystem co-founder Jason Dodier, the conversation explored how traditional practices and regenerative tools can work together to restore soil health, improve resilience, and strengthen local food systems.  </p><h2>From family legacy to soil innovation </h2><p>Okaw Valley Orchard is a fourth-generation family-run orchard in Sullivan, Illinois, home to more than 1,500 fruit trees and 27 varieties of apples, peaches, plums, and pears. Known for its cider, donuts, and “you-pick” experiences, the orchard is also becoming a living laboratory for soil health innovation. </p><p>When Mike and his wife took over the orchard, they inherited both a rich family legacy and some aging trees that weren’t producing as they used to. After replanting, Mike noticed the new trees weren’t growing as expected. Despite consulting universities and other orchards, he couldn’t find a clear answer, until a chance encounter with a customer, a retired farmer, connected him to Brian, a regenerative agronomist who would become his mentor and collaborator.  </p><h2>The turning point: a micronutrient blend that brought trees back to life </h2><p>Brian introduced Mike to the importance of trace minerals and micronutrients, sharing a custom foliar blend he had developed through years of research. The results were immediate: “They burst to life,” Mike recalled. All the trees “put on new growth, turned green, and started blooming. And it wasn’t just a couple of them; it was all the trees that I planted. All 200 trees did the same thing.” </p><p>That experience became the foundation of Mike’s Mighty Micros, a brand and philosophy rooted in the idea that when you feed the soil, the soil feeds the plant. </p><h2>The three ingredients for thriving soil </h2><p> When asked what he now considers essential for healthy soil, Mike didn’t hesitate: “Biochar, worm castings, and compost.” </p><p>After learning how decades of tree growth had depleted the orchard’s soil, Mike realized that fertilizer alone couldn’t restore what was missing. By combining biochar with organic matter and microbial life, he began rebuilding soil structure and fertility from the ground up. </p><p>As Mike explained during the webinar: “Biochar keeps the ground less compacted, more aerated, more ideal for worms to be in. So they’re in there doing their thing, digging tunnels, pooping in them, and fertilizing for you for free.”  </p><p>Biochar, he explained, acts as a soil amendment, not a replacement. It provides structure, porosity, and habitat for microorganisms. Compost and worm castings supply nutrients and active biology. Together, they create a living soil system that improves water retention, nutrient cycling, and long-term fertility. </p><h2>Real results in the orchard </h2><p>The benefits have been visible and measurable. Even during drought conditions, Mike’s orchard has shown clear improvements in resilience and water retention. “Right now, we’re in a drought here in central Illinois. We’re twelve inches behind on rain,” he said. “The ground is like concrete. But under my trees, where I’ve got biochar and mulch, it’s holding moisture. I haven’t watered this year, and the new trees I planted this spring are still green.” </p><p>He noted that his trees now stay green longer into the season: “My apple trees will stay green until the end of November. The other trees drop their leaves, but the apple trees under this system hold on. They stay alive longer.” </p><p>Beyond resilience, Mike highlighted something less often measured but instantly recognizable: flavor. “Once you’ve had a fruit or vegetable that’s fully genetically expressed — with every mineral it needs — the flavor is second to none. When you bite into one of my apples, the flavor hits you. It’s juicy. It’s all there.”  </p><img src="/media/BiocharInBloomPhotos.jpg" alt="BiocharInBloomPhotos.jpg" width="900"  height="506"/><p></p><h2>Lessons for farmers and biochar producers </h2><p>Beyond the orchard, Mike’s experience offers valuable guidance for both farmers using biochar and producers supplying it:  </p><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Not all biochar is created equal. Feedstock matters. Manure-based biochar tends to offer higher nutrient content and better results than wood-only char.  </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Mix, don’t mound. Biochar must be incorporated into the soil, not concentrated in planting holes. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Start small but consistent. Mike recommends 1,000–2,000 lbs per acre depending on soil type, integrated with compost and organic material. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Think long term. “You get about three years of nutrient value from manure-based biochar alone,” he explained. “But when you combine it with microbial life, that benefit extends much further.” </li></ul><h2>A family legacy, rooted in regeneration </h2><p>Today, Okaw Valley Orchard continues to be a thriving family business, with Mike’s children and grandchildren all involved. What started as an effort to save a few struggling trees has grown into a model for how small farms can embrace circular, regenerative systems, proving that soil innovation can strengthen both local economies and community connections. </p><p> “Healthy soil, healthy plants, healthy people. That’s the cycle we’re working to protect,” Mike shared. </p><p>--- </p><p>Mark your calendars! Our next webinar is coming up on November 6 with a new topic and guest. Stay tuned. </p><h2>Related content: Grain Webinars </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6883a7802492b585355e77ee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Green Bridge: Non-Traditional Finance for Biochar</a></li><li value=2><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b75ae223e6759660f119ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Advancing CDR: From Start-Up to Scale-Up</a></li><li value=3><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6751f73e593a512d338ee036" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Building Biochar Markets for Value & Scale: Webinar Recap</a></li><li value=4><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092f5e79685344119a953f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dirt to Dollars. Unearthing the Science of Sustainable Investment</a></li></ul>

Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard 

Securing a consistent and high-quality feedstock supply is one of the most critical aspects of launching a successful biochar project. Here’s how to assess your feedstock options, approach providers, and build agreements that set your project up for scale. 

Some projects already have secured feedstock, like a sugar mill looking for solutions to manage its excess bagasse. Others, however, need to form partnerships with external suppliers. We’ll focus on the specifics of this latter approach. 

Before starting your project or reaching out to potential providers, you’ll need to understand what qualifies as acceptable feedstock. In short: it must be biogenic, waste-derived, and clean. That means it needs to come from a biological source, be considered a residual material rather than a primary product, and be free from contaminants like plastic, chemicals, or paint. 

These standards aren’t just technicalities: they’re essential for emissions control, regulatory compliance, and downstream carbon certification. 

In these previous articles you can read about eligible feedstocks for each Standard and how to prove its Sustainable: 

Where to Find Viable Feedstock Providers 

The most reliable feedstock often comes from existing, large-scale operations that already generate biogenic waste as a byproduct of their core business. Sawmills, sugar mills, municipal green waste programs, and tree services are prime examples. They produce a steady stream of materials —like wood chips, bark fines, and bagasse— that would otherwise be discarded or underutilized. 

Tapping into these supply chains allows you to leverage their existing logistics infrastructure. Ideally, your processing facility should be located as close as possible to theirs. This not only reduces transport costs, emissions and complexity, but makes your value proposition stronger, because you’re offering a solution for their waste, without requiring them to reinvent operations. 

Not surprisingly, feedstock composition, the biochar system input, has a big impact on system outputs, the products. Therefore, selecting the optimal feedstock really depends on what products you’re trying to produce. 

If your priority is high biochar yield, denser materials like hardwoods, nut shells, and fruit pits are ideal. These can offer yield rates of 20 to 30 percent. On the other hand, if your project focuses on energy production or waste reduction, less dense materials like sugarcane bagasse, grasses, or agricultural residues may be more appropriate. For more insight into these differences, we recommend the following article: 

What a Good Feedstock Agreement Looks Like 

Investors want to see that your project has a secure and predictable supply chain. While it may not always be possible to sign a long-term contract from day one, even a one-year Letter of Intent (LOI) goes a long way in establishing credibility and project viability. 

A strong feedstock agreement should cover the basics: 

Example: The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and, unless earlier terminated pursuant the terms herein, shall remain in full force and effect for 20 years 

Example: Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice if the other Party becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, has a receiver or trustee appointed for the benefit of its creditors, or files for protection from creditors under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws, 

Example: Payment shall be Net 15 Days from Shipment Date. Interest on delinquent amounts shall accrue at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum until paid. 

And, more importantly, it should mitigate the following risks: 

Clarity and transparency here not only reduce risk but can streamline operations once you’re up and running. You can access our template documents 

Plan for Growth and Choose Partners Who Can Grow with You 

Most successful projects start small, then scale once the model proves itself. Your initial phase might require 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes of feedstock per year, but if the project performs well, you might need three or four times that in phase two. That’s why it’s worth prioritizing providers who can grow with you, or who are already managing large streams of waste that can be tapped gradually. 

Feedstock security isn’t static. It’s strategic. Think about where you want your project to go in five, ten, or twenty years, and choose partners who can help get you there. 

Feedstock is the foundation of your project and one of the first thing investors and registries will look at when assessing your business case. By understanding what makes feedstock viable, finding the right providers, and building clear agreements from the start, you’ll be positioned to scale smoothly and deliver impact. 

Discover strategies for securing reliable feedstock partnerships that meet sustainability and project growth goals. 

<p></p><p>Securing a consistent and high-quality feedstock supply is one of the most critical aspects of launching a successful biochar project. Here’s how to assess your feedstock options, approach providers, and build agreements that set your project up for scale. </p><p>Some projects already have secured feedstock, like a sugar mill looking for solutions to manage its excess bagasse. Others, however, need to form partnerships with external suppliers. We’ll focus on the specifics of this latter approach. </p><h2>What Makes a Feedstock Qualified? </h2><p>Before starting your project or reaching out to potential providers, you’ll need to understand what qualifies as acceptable feedstock. In short: it must be biogenic, waste-derived, and clean. That means it needs to come from a biological source, be considered a residual material rather than a primary product, and be free from contaminants like plastic, chemicals, or paint. </p><p>These standards aren’t just technicalities: they’re essential for emissions control, regulatory compliance, and downstream carbon certification. </p><p>In these previous articles you can read about eligible feedstocks for each Standard and how to prove its Sustainable: </p><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67362abaea63cff8e65976e2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Biochar: Feedstock Sourcing & Eligibility for every Standard </em></a></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68af5254b1d72ab2d7467ef7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Securing Your Feedstock: How to Prove it’s Sustainable </em></a><em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><h2>Where to Find Viable Feedstock Providers </h2><p>The most reliable feedstock often comes from existing, large-scale operations that already generate biogenic waste as a byproduct of their core business. Sawmills, sugar mills, municipal green waste programs, and tree services are prime examples. They produce a steady stream of materials —like wood chips, bark fines, and bagasse— that would otherwise be discarded or underutilized. </p><p>Tapping into these supply chains allows you to leverage their existing logistics infrastructure. Ideally, your processing facility should be located as close as possible to theirs. This not only reduces transport costs, emissions and complexity, but makes your value proposition stronger, because you’re offering a solution for their waste, without requiring them to reinvent operations. </p><h2>Match Your Feedstock to Your Outputs </h2><p>Not surprisingly, feedstock composition, the biochar system input, has a big impact on system outputs, the products. Therefore, selecting the optimal feedstock really depends on what products you’re trying to produce. </p><p>If your priority is high biochar yield, denser materials like hardwoods, nut shells, and fruit pits are ideal. These can offer yield rates of 20 to 30 percent. On the other hand, if your project focuses on energy production or waste reduction, less dense materials like sugarcane bagasse, grasses, or agricultural residues may be more appropriate. For more insight into these differences, we recommend the following article: </p><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6814f3dae44bb4f2fc862292" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>How to Understand Your Biochar Quality</em></a><em> (Members only)</em></li></ul><h2>What a Good Feedstock Agreement Looks Like </h2><p>Investors want to see that your project has a secure and predictable supply chain. While it may not always be possible to sign a long-term contract from day one, even a one-year Letter of Intent (LOI) goes a long way in establishing credibility and project viability. </p><p>A strong feedstock agreement should cover the basics: </p><h3>Define the term of the agreement  </h3><p>Example: The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and, unless earlier terminated pursuant the terms herein, shall remain in full force and effect for 20 years </p><h3>Define the Termination rights </h3><p>Example: Either Party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice if the other Party becomes insolvent, makes an assignment for the benefit of its creditors, has a receiver or trustee appointed for the benefit of its creditors, or files for protection from creditors under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws, </p><h3>Define Payment Terms </h3><p>Example: Payment shall be Net 15 Days from Shipment Date. Interest on delinquent amounts shall accrue at the rate of eighteen percent (18%) per annum until paid. </p><p>And, more importantly, it should mitigate the following risks: </p><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Feedstock quantities align with planned volumes </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Feedstock composition aligns with system design </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Feedstock cost aligns with financial projections </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1>Feedstock is eligible for carbon offsets. </li></ul><p>Clarity and transparency here not only reduce risk but can streamline operations once you’re up and running. You can access our template documents <a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/downloads" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a> to help you get started <em>(Members only)</em>. </p><h2>Plan for Growth and Choose Partners Who Can Grow with You </h2><p>Most successful projects start small, then scale once the model proves itself. Your initial phase might require 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes of feedstock per year, but if the project performs well, you might need three or four times that in phase two. That’s why it’s worth prioritizing providers who can grow with you, or who are already managing large streams of waste that can be tapped gradually. </p><p>Feedstock security isn’t static. It’s strategic. Think about where you want your project to go in five, ten, or twenty years, and choose partners who can help get you there. </p><h2>In Closing </h2><p>Feedstock is the foundation of your project and one of the first thing investors and registries will look at when assessing your business case. By understanding what makes feedstock viable, finding the right providers, and building clear agreements from the start, you’ll be positioned to scale smoothly and deliver impact. </p><h2>Related content </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67362abaea63cff8e65976e2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biochar: Feedstock Sourcing & Eligibility for every Standard </a></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68af5254b1d72ab2d7467ef7" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Securing Your Feedstock: How to Prove it’s Sustainable </a><em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6814f3dae44bb4f2fc862292" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How to Understand Your Biochar Quality</a> <em>(Members only)</em></li></ul><p> </p>

Grain

Articles

From Shutdown to Scale-Up: What Federal and State Policy Means for Biochar in 2026

Financing the Future of Biochar: Real Capital for Real Infrastructure

Carbon Removal Meets Compliance: Navigating the Legal Landscape for Biochar Projects

ElectraTherm's ORC Technology Integrated into Grain Ecosystem's Equipment Selection Platform

Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard

Finding and Partnering with the Right Feedstock Providers